Follow us on social

google cta
2020-09-23t155218z_20709791_rc2f4j9ad172_rtrmadp_3_health-coronavirus-usa-hearing-scaled

Rand Paul wants to kill $650M missile sale to Saudi Arabia

But getting Democratic colleagues to sign on may be more difficult that he thought.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Rand Paul’s office told RS today that the Republican senator is readying a joint resolution of disapproval to stop the Biden Administration’s expected sale of $650 million worth of “defensive” air-to-air missiles or AMRAAMs, as well as 596 missile launches to Saudi Arabia, as announced on Nov. 4

“A message needs to be sent to Saudi Arabia that we don’t approve of their war in Yemen," Paul said in a statement to Responsible Statecraft.

The news was also confirmed in an Intercept report this afternoon in which Paul said he aims to file a privileged motion to stop the export, which would guarantee an immediate floor vote on whether to disapprove the sale. That vote could occur within the next two weeks, according to the Intercept's Sara Sirota.

Interestingly, the article centered around Paul’s interest in generating support from his Democratic colleagues, particularly those who have typically been on the same page when it comes to U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia and its Gulf state neighbor, UAE. But as the report suggests, Biden’s fellow Dems aren’t hopping on the bandwagon right away, at least not yet.

Sen. Bernie Sanders did not show outright skepticism. He told the Intercept that he has yet to see the details, but he’s “not unsympathetic” to what Paul is trying to do. (UPDATE: According to Sirota, Sanders' office now says it will co-sponsor Paul's resolution).

Other comments speak to what could be the sticking point for many others — the difference between “offensive” and “defensive” weapons. At the beginning of his term, President Biden pledged to end all assistance to Riyadh for its “offensive” operations in Yemen. In the months since, analysts have scratched their heads over what that really means and whether the administration would find loopholes through which to drive new arms sales to Saudi Arabia anyway (there is one, approved by the Trump administration, still on hold).

The State Department has justified this latest deal of AMRAAMs by saying they would be used to “defend” the Saudis from cross-border attacks by the Houthis. Critics have responded by saying Riyadh could easily use to the missiles to enforce the economic blockade on Yemen — a form of offensive warfare as it's put tens of millions of Yemenis at risk of starvation and disease.

So far, it sounds like Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., normally a Saudi arms critic, is not sure. “My position generally has been to support truly defensive weapons sales to the Saudis, while opposing sales that could be used in offensive operations, particularly in Yemen,” he told Sirota.

Paul’s action would follow a joint resolution of disapproval introduced by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Mich.) last week. Meanwhile, Sanders and Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) have introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would end all military assistance to Saudi Arabia for its war in Yemen (defensive, offensive, or otherwise). Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) passed similar language in the House version of the NDAA.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) looks on during a U.S. Senate Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Hearing, September 23, 2020. Alex Edelman/Pool via REUTERS
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.
President Donald J. Trump participates in a pull-aside meeting with the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Denmark Mette Frederiksen during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 70th anniversary meeting Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2019, in Watford, Hertfordshire outside London. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.

North America

The Trump administration dramatically escalated its campaign to control Greenland in 2025. When President Trump first proposed buying Greenland in 2019, the world largely laughed it off. Now, the laughter has died down, and the mood has shifted from mockery to disbelief and anxiety.

Indeed, following Trump's military strike on Venezuela, analysts now warn that Trump's threats against Greenland should be taken seriously — especially after Katie Miller, wife of Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, posted a U.S. flag-draped map of Greenland captioned "SOON" just hours after American forces seized Nicolas Maduro.

keep readingShow less
Trump White House
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump Speaks During Roundtable With Business Leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Washington, DC on December 10, 2025 (Shutterstock/Lucas Parker)

When Trump's big Venezuela oil grab runs smack into reality

Latin America

Within hours of U.S. military strikes on Venezuela and the capture of its leader, Nicolas Maduro, President Trump proclaimed that “very large United States oil companies would go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”

Indeed, at no point during this exercise has there been any attempt to deny that control of Venezuela’s oil (or “our oil” as Trump once described it) is a major force motivating administration actions.

keep readingShow less
us military
Top photo credit: Shutterstock/PRESSLAB

Team America is back! And keeping with history, has no real plan

Latin America

The successful seizure and removal of President Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela demonstrates Washington’s readiness to use every means at its disposal — including military power — to stave off any diminishment of U.S. national influence in its bid to manage the dissolution of the celebrated postwar, liberal order.

For the moment, the rules-based order (meaning whatever rules Washington wants to impose) persists in the Western Hemisphere. As President Donald Trump noted, “We can do it again. Nobody can stop us. There’s nobody with the capability that we have.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.